Fetch product details for a Gymshark item using its URL handle, returning structured JSON from the fixed storefront.
Get a Gymshark product. Returns product detail for one Gymshark (https://row.gymshark.com) product handle. The storefront URL is fixed server-side; handle is the product's URL slug.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| handle | Yes | Product handle |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.16.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the storefront URL is fixed server-side and that `handle` is a URL slug, which is useful behavioral context, but it does not mention read-only nature explicitly, error behavior for missing handles, auth needs, or rate limits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Front-loaded and short. The first two sentences overlap somewhat ('Get a Gymshark product' / 'Returns product detail for one Gymshark product handle'), so a small amount of redundancy prevents a 5.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter lookup with no output schema and no annotations, the description is largely sufficient: it explains the operation, the single input's format, and the fixed backend URL. It could say a bit more about what 'product detail' includes, but the core call contract is clear.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% so baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema's bare 'Product handle': it specifies the parameter is the product's URL slug and that the storefront URL is fixed server-side. That reduces ambiguity about how to obtain and pass the handle.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb (Get) and resource (Gymshark product), and scopes it to a single product handle, which implicitly distinguishes it from the plural sibling gymshark_products. However, it does not name any alternative sibling explicitly, so full sibling differentiation is left to inference.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied: call this when you have a product handle and want detail for that one product. The description does not state when to prefer this over gymshark_products or gymshark_collection_products, nor does it give any exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.